>>>>I think I have to question that. More precisely, Science and physics are not the products of our minds (unless you just mean the words 'science' and 'physics'). I'd suggest that what is the product of our minds is how we interpret and choose to understand the manifestations of the underlying laws of science and physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the difference between gravity and the law of gravity?
>>
>>Nothing. but there may well be a huge difference between the law of gravity and our understanding of the manifestation of the law of gravity.
>
>
>What difference is there between the Law and how we understand the Law?

Probably impossible to know that. But not knowing doesn't mean there is no difference. Remember Newton's laws of interaction? We knew them as laws, and later discovered that they were not quite laws, but just maybe bylaws.

>>>>>Minds are the result of absolute reality.
>>>>
>>>>Only if you believe that absolute reality is a magical God.
>>>
>>>What's magical about it?
>>
>>He waves a wand and we are created, and you ask what's magical about it?
>
>
>I don't recall saying anything like that.

True. I was interpreting what you said in my own understanding.

>>>>>Science can't be the reality of minds, if science is a result of the mind existing.
>>>>
>>>>Are you absolutely sure that minds are not a result of the laws of science, physics, and chemistry?
>>>
>>>Are you absolute sure that they are?
>>
>>Nope, but then I'm not the one who made the assertion.
>>
>>>
>>>I'm fairly sure that your conscious experience is not a result of special relativity or quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>>I'm fairly sure that special relativity and quantum mechanics are a result of your conscious experience.
>>
>>Again, what I think is that our understanding of special relativity and quantum mechanics are a result of our conscious experience, but not necessarily special relativity and quantum mechanics themselves.
>
>
>How can we test to see whether or not the laws are different than our understanding of them?

Ah, that's the sixty-four dollar question. The laws would have to be predictive and consistent. As we learn more, that predictability and consistency become more and more... well... predictable and consistent. We may never know for sure, but whether or not we have a full and perfect understanding of those laws, afaic, doesn't affect the laws themselves.

In fact, any lack of consistency in our predictions tells us that the laws don't really much care what we think we understand. They're going to behave they do regardless. If they were a product of our own minds, then wouldn't there necessarily always be absolute consistency and predictability?